Talk:Utah's at-large congressional district

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) place(s).

United States: Utah Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Utah portal This article is supported by WikiProject Utah.

Article vs redirect

An admin BGWhite is insisting this become a redirect to the United States congressional delegations from Utah page. All other states have District pages, whether they be obsolete or active. They also have delegations pages. The admin is insisting on a discussion so here we go..........redirect or article? A yes/support vote would indicate separate articles for Utah's At-large congressional district and another for United States congressional delegations from Utah. A no/reject would indicate the Utah's At-large congressional district would become a redirect.......Pvmoutside (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Utah's At-large congressional district deserves support to be standalone along with United States congressional delegations from Utah. Both should be available as stand alones as both refer to different information. Every single state has both obsolete districts (including at-large) as well as delegation pages. One would hope to go to information asked for if they click on a link for their request, rather to go to a redirect, if information is available, as it is here........Pvmoutside (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Stop saying admin. I'm an editor.

The page Pymoutside put up is inferior to the redirect.

The page is not accessible compliant, along with all the other at-large pages.
The redirect gives all the same info as the current page, but more text, photos and better table.
It integrates it into the big picture.
The reader does have a link for their request... click on the link and it gives all the same info and more. The reader doesn't notice a redirect.
Most importantly, it gives the reader more and better information.

There is no place that says all pages must be standardized. None. I understand the importance of standardization. I helped in standardizing all the List of Governor's pages. I gave a link to Pymoutside in which I tried to standardize a governor's page. I was turned down and told we don't have to standardize. If somebody wanted to make the at-large better than the redirect, there nobody stopping that and I'd support that. But until then, go with what is better for the reader. Bgwhite (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about standardization. It's about having different pages, with different information. Does the editor suggest we change the Territory, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd districts to redirects as well?....Pvmoutside (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Separate districts should have separate articles. I support the separate article and oppose the redirect.—GoldRingChip 11:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the resolution of the redirection, the standard is for "at-large" to be lower case, not "At-large."—GoldRingChip 11:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]